[rfc 243] Naming of ConnectFrameworkFactory vs ConnectFramework

[bjhargrave]

Original bug ID: BZ#3142 From: @cziegeler Reported version: R8

[bjhargrave]

Comment author: @cziegeler

I think the naming of ConnectFrameworkFactory and ConnectFramework is a little bit confusing. ConnectFrameworkFactory is not creating a ConnectFramework - ConnectFramework is rather input to the factory.

I think ConnectFrameworkFactory as a name is fine, maybe ConnectAwareFrameworkFactory would be slightly better.

But I suggest to rename ConnectFramework to something else to avoid the naming confusing mentioned above. As a none native speaker ConnectEnvironment is the first option that comes to my mind.

[bjhargrave]

Comment author: @tjwatson

I agree, and it becomes difficult when reading the specification to even differentiate THE Framework from the connect framework.

My vote is to change the ConnectFramework name. I suggest changing it to Connector:

org.osgi.framework.connect.Connector

A Connector connects a bundle location with a ConnectModule or Connection (bug BZ#3141)

So you would have the following:

public interface Connector { Connector initialize(File storage, Map<String,String> configuration);

Optional<Connection> connect(String location) throws BundleException;

Optional<BundleActivator> createBundleActivator();

}

[bjhargrave]

Comment author: Richard Hall <heavy@ungoverned.org>

Not that it really matters, but I think pushing down the "Connect" name here is what is causing the confusion.

OSGi Connect and pojoSR came about when this was focused more on being a service registry without the module layer and we were going to "connect" components via services. The new approach is very much like my virtual bundle approach, which was a way of making non-bundle things look like bundles.

To me, it seems like it would make more sense to call ConnectFramework something like ConnectModuleFactory, which is a way to get a ConnectModule.

[bjhargrave]

Comment author: @tjwatson

(In reply to Richard Hall from comment BZ#2)

Not that it really matters, but I think pushing down the "Connect" name here is what is causing the confusion.

OSGi Connect and pojoSR came about when this was focused more on being a service registry without the module layer and we were going to "connect" components via services. The new approach is very much like my virtual bundle approach, which was a way of making non-bundle things look like bundles.

To me, it seems like it would make more sense to call ConnectFramework something like ConnectModuleFactory, which is a way to get a ConnectModule.

While the reason for calling it Connect may have changed over time I still think the idea of a Connector or Connection is a concept that can be applied to the current design. For me the confusion is around calling it a framework (because we already have a framework) and I don't like factory because it is not really a factory that keeps creating new widgets each time you call it. It really seems like a connector because it connects things together.

[bjhargrave]

Comment author: @cziegeler

Connector sounds good to me

[bjhargrave]

Comment author: @rotty3000

(In reply to Carsten Ziegeler from comment BZ#4)

Connector sounds good to me

I'm starting to gravitate toward Connector as well.

[bjhargrave]

Comment author: @tjwatson

(In reply to Raymond Auge from comment BZ#5)

(In reply to Carsten Ziegeler from comment BZ#4)

Connector sounds good to me

I'm starting to gravitate toward Connector as well.

At the CPEG call we agreed to rename ConnectFramework to ModuleConnector

[bjhargrave]

Comment author: @tjwatson

Spec, CT, RI updated with ModuleConnector name change.